Mr Tsham was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident on 9 November 2020 in Gqeberha, Eastern Cape. He instituted action for damages against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. Mr Tsham submitted an RAF 1 form to the defendant under cover letter dated 21 September 2022, sent by registered mail on 29 September 2022. The RAF 1 form and annexures comprised 68 pages and was completed in every material respect. The RAF issued summons on 17 March 2023, entered appearance to defend on 25 April 2023, and filed a plea on 17 May 2023 stating no knowledge of compliance. In October 2024, more than a year later, the RAF filed an amended plea denying compliance, annexing a letter dated 19 June 2024 objecting to the validity of the claim based on Board Notice 271 of 2022. The parties agreed to separate the question of compliance with the Act from the remaining issues in dispute. The RAF admitted it would be liable for 100% of damages if compliance was found.
1. The defendant's defence of non-compliance by the plaintiff with the requirements of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 is dismissed, with costs. 2. The defendant shall be liable for 100% of such damages as plaintiff is able to prove arising from injuries sustained in the collision on 9 November 2020. 3. All further aspects of the action are postponed sine die. 4. Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of suit including VAT, on a party and party scale as taxed, including costs of photographs, preparation of heads of argument on compliance, and counsel's costs taxed on Scale C including one day's trial fee. 5. Interest to accrue at 11.75% per annum from 14 days after taxation until payment. 6. Payments to be made to plaintiff's attorneys' banking account.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) The RAF cannot rely on Board Notice 271 of 2022 as it has been declared unlawful and set aside by a full court; (2) Section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 requires the RAF to object to the validity of a claim within 60 days from the date on which the claim was sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the Fund; (3) If the RAF fails to object within the 60-day period, the claim is deemed to be valid in law in all respects, even where the content of the RAF 1 form or annexed documentation did not fully comply with the Act; (4) The effect of section 24(5) is to clothe an otherwise invalid lodgment with legal validity where no timeous objection is raised within 60 days; (5) Objections raised after the 60-day period cannot be sustained.
The court expressed agreement with the reasons advanced and conclusions reached by the full court in Legal Practitioner's Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP) regarding the unlawfulness of Board Notice 271 of 2022, though this was not strictly necessary for the decision given that the judgment was not appealed and counsel for the RAF could not advance any submission to the contrary.
This case reinforces the strict interpretation of section 24(5) of the Road Accident Fund Act, which requires the RAF to object to the validity of claims within 60 days of lodgment, failing which the claim is deemed valid in all respects. It confirms that the RAF cannot belatedly raise objections to compliance after the 60-day period has expired, even where there may have been substantive deficiencies in the claim documentation. The case also confirms that the RAF cannot rely on Board Notice 271 of 2022 after it was declared unlawful and set aside by the full court in the Legal Practitioner's Indemnity Insurance Fund case. This decision protects claimants from delayed objections and ensures procedural certainty in RAF claims administration.